Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Cape Cod Weighs Big-Ticket Pollution Solutions

News Feed
Friday, May 24, 2024

This story was co-published with WBUR in Boston and produced with assistance from the Pulitzer Center. Read WBUR’s coverage of efforts to improve Cape Cod’s water pollution, including a “pee-cycling” project being considered by one innovative town. And check out a documentary short exploring these issues that was co-produced by WBUR and Scientific American.[CLIP: Theme music]Rachel Feltman: Cape Cod’s ponds and bays have suffered from decades of pollution. But scientific detective work has finally pinpointed the worst culprit: human urine. When household septic systems flush nitrogen and other nutrients into the water, they provide an all-you-can-eat buffet for algae blooms. More algae means less sunlight and oxygen for other marine life, which means trouble for the people of Cape Cod.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.For Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. Today we’re bringing you the second installment in our three-part Fascination series on Cape Cod’s yellow tide. In this episode WBUR environmental correspondent Barbara Moran looks at some of the big-ticket pollution solutions up for consideration—and unpacks why they’re so controversial.So without further ado, here’s part two: “Sticker Shock.”[CLIP: Gerard Martin speaks at a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) hearing: “All right, excuse me, everybody, I think we’re gonna get going.”]Barbara Moran: Starting in late 2022 and continuing into the next year, concerned residents gathered for a series of public meetings with representatives from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The residents were there to share their thoughts.[CLIP: Martin continues to speak at the hearing: “The hearing is being recorded and conducted in a hybrid format.”]Moran: The state was proposing new rules that would require communities to reduce their nitrogen pollution. In some places that meant people would potentially have to install new $35,000 septic systems. Here’s what Frank King of Brewster, Massachusetts, had to say about that.[CLIP: Frank King speaks at the MassDEP hearing: “If that is correct, you are looking at a massive protest on the scale of another Boston Tea Party.”][CLIP: Chris Shanahan speaks at the MassDEP hearing: “Thirty or thirty-five thousand dollars a year? That’s a complete misrepresentation.”]Moran: That’s Chris Shanahan of Falmouth, Massachusetts.[CLIP: Shanahan continues to speak at the hearing: “You can buy a system for that. You gotta maintain it. You gotta fix parts. It just never ends. So lifetime expense is more like eighty or a hundred thousand over 30 years.”][CLIP: Joan Hutchings speaks at the MassDEP hearing: “I’m not somebody that has a McMansion. I’ve got a three-bedroom home that’s been in my family for a bazillion years.”]Moran: Joan Hutchings of North Truro, Massachusetts. She said her town already made her upgrade her septic system.[CLIP: Hutchings continues to speak at the hearing: “Now the state’s gonna have me do something else? I don’t know, I might put an outhouse out back—seriously.”]Moran: People are concerned about the cost, as you heard. But they’re also concerned about whether these new systems even work. Can they actually prevent water pollution? I wondered the same thing. So I went to see an expert.Brian Baumgaertel: My name is Brian Baumgaertel. I’m the director of the Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center.Moran: You met Brian briefly in Episode One. Now we’re on his home turf: a two-and-a-half acre outdoor laboratory on Cape Cod known as MASSTC.Brian’s team is on a mission to find the best septic systems in the world—and it’s not a job for the squeamish.[CLIP: Sound of wastewater channel]Moran (tape): All right, so I’m looking into this hole, and there’s, like, water pouring in and some scummy stuff floating around there.Baumgaertel: Yeah, that’s the raw wastewater coming in from Joint Base Cape Cod. And it doesn’t look like what most people would think of when—you know, when you’re thinking of wastewater, you think it’s pretty disgusting. I—you know, maybe I’ve just gotten so used to it. I don’t know.Moran (tape): It is a little disgusting. [Laughs]Baumgaertel: It’s got kind of a smell. You know, it’s one of the less glorious parts of MASSTC, but it’s a necessity. [Laughs] It’s brown gold, brown gold for us.Moran: MASSTC uses that brown gold to test prototype septic systems from all over the world. I ask Brian to show me one—although it’s hard to see much at the facility.Baumgaertel: A lot of what we do here is underground because of course, for the most part, septic systems in homes would be underground.Moran: Brian walks over to a grassy mound that looks weirdly like a burial site—which it is, actually. He says that buried underneath our feet is a new kind of septic system that removes nitrogen from wastewater.Here’s how it works: Wastewater flows into a tank, and all the solid stuff sinks to the bottom. The liquid left floating on top includes our pee, which is rich in nitrogen, phosphorus and other nutrients. This liquid flows out of the tank …Baumgaertel: And then flows into the actual unit itself …Moran (tape): Another tank that’s under our feet.Baumgaertel: Yep, yep. There’s another tank that’s about 12 feet long right here.Moran (tape): Okay.Baumgaertel: And inside that tank are a number of compartments.Moran: The compartments contain limestone rocks and wood chips. These ingredients create a breeding ground for bacteria that eat nitrogen. They convert it into harmless nitrogen gas before it gets into the groundwater.Other systems remove nitrogen in different ways. Brian and his team test the water coming out of each system to see how well it works. And he says this one has been working pretty well.Baumgaertel: So far the data look very encouraging. Every day we get a little bit more data, we get a little bit more confidence that the technology can work.[CLIP: “We Are Giants,” by Silver Maple]Moran: Others are also heartened by the data, including Zenas Crocker, who goes by Zee. He’s executive director of the nonprofit Barnstable Clean Water Coalition.Zenas Crocker: And this system is so successful that in the data that we’re seeing now, it will remove between 95 and 97 percent of nitrogen going into the groundwater.Moran: Zee’s group was so impressed with how well these systems remove nitrogen that it launched a pilot project. The group is installing more than a dozen in a neighborhood by Shubael Pond in Barnstable, Massachusetts—including one when I visited last September.[CLIP: Sound of chains being attached to a tank, followed by it being lifted]Moran: As we watch, a crane operator uses chains to lift a concrete tank and lower it into a hole in the ground.[CLIP: Sound of the tank being lowered and men talking]Moran: Zee’s group is working with the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey to monitor how well the new systems keep nitrogen out of the groundwater.Crocker: We chose this location in particular because these are all small lots. We’re also in a working-class community. Generally we’re looking at full-time residents here and people who really can’t afford, necessarily, to upgrade their septic systems.Moran: The Barnstable Clean Water Coalition paid to install the systems in this neighborhood; the homeowners paid nothing—which won’t be an option for the whole cape.But there is another approach to stopping wastewater pollution: switching from septic tanks to sewage pipes, which would bring the waste to a treatment plant. And that’s what Barnstable is doing in other parts of the town.I went to Barnstable’s town hall to meet the guy in charge.Moran (tape): Hi, how’re you doing? I have a nine o’clock interview with Mark Ells.Receptionist: Okay, sure, he’ll be right with you.Moran: Mark Ells is Barnstable’s town manager.Mark Ells: We’ve seen a significant deterioration of our bays to the point where we don’t have shellfish, we don’t have finfish. So we want to make sure that we put in place solutions that help us to address not only what we know today but what we’re anticipating tomorrow.Moran: Barnstable is the largest town on the cape, and parts are pretty urban, with houses and commercial buildings relatively close together. In places like this, sewer systems are a practical and cost-effective choice.So the town has begun a massive expansion of its sewer system, planning to extend service to almost 12,000 properties.[CLIP: “Let There Be Rain,” by Silver Maple]It’ll take 30 years and cost more than $1 billion. The town got local, state and federal funding to help cover the expansion costs. But homeowners will still have to pay.First there’s a town assessment of up to $10,000. Then homeowners have to pay to get their house hooked up to the sewer line and pay for someone to deal with their old septic tank. And then they’ll have a monthly sewer bill. The final cost, spread over decades, is probably in the range of $20,000 to $30,000—or more—per house.[CLIP: Construction sounds]Moran: And there’s another cost to installing sewer lines: seemingly constant roadwork and traffic jams.One day last fall cars crawled along as superintendent Mike Donovan’s crew dug up the main road into Barnstable.Moran (tape): Is this going to be, like, what your company does for, like, the next three decades?Mike Donovan: We—well, hopefully, yeah. That’s what we do for a living. We’re installing sewer all over the cape right now.Moran: But even this ambitious, expensive sewer expansion will take decades to reach some neighborhoods in Barnstable.Pat Uhlman lives across the street from Shubael Pond. And she’s seen it turn green with toxic algae. She says a few decades is too long to keep polluting the water.Pat Uhlman: If we don’t start cleaning it up now, you know, you might not even want to walk down by that pond by then.Moran: Luckily Pat is part of the neighborhood pilot project that got new septic systems installed for free. She says she understands that other homeowners are feeling sticker shock, but the pollution has to stop.Uhlman: The cape economy is still people coming here in the summer. So if they can’t swim in our ponds, they can’t swim in our ocean, they can’t boat, there’s not gonna be any reason for them to come here.[CLIP: Theme music]Moran: There may be another solution, a cheaper one. It won’t solve all the cape’s water problems, but it could help—a lot. We’ll talk about that next week in the final part of this Scientific American–WBUR Fascination miniseries.Feltman: Thanks for listening. Tune in next Friday for the final installment in this miniseries—which, spoiler alert, involves a little something called “pee-cycling.” You don’t want to miss it.Can’t wait for next Friday to get here? Don’t worry. We are taking Monday off for Memorial Day, but we’ll be back in your feed on Wednesday with some tips for protecting wildlife from the comfort of your own backyard.This series is a co-production of WBUR and Scientific American. It’s reported and hosted by WBUR’s Barbara Moran.Science Quickly is produced by Jeff DelViscio, Kelso Harper, Madison Goldberg and Rachel Feltman. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-checked this series, and Duy Linh Tu and Sebastian Tuinder contributed reporting and sound. WBUR’s Kathleen Masterson edited this series. Additional funding was provided by the Pulitzer Center.For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman.

Toxic algal blooms are forcing Cape Cod communities to consider expensive sewer and septic system projects.

This story was co-published with WBUR in Boston and produced with assistance from the Pulitzer Center. Read WBUR’s coverage of efforts to improve Cape Cod’s water pollution, including a “pee-cycling” project being considered by one innovative town. And check out a documentary short exploring these issues that was co-produced by WBUR and Scientific American.

[CLIP: Theme music]

Rachel Feltman: Cape Cod’s ponds and bays have suffered from decades of pollution. But scientific detective work has finally pinpointed the worst culprit: human urine. When household septic systems flush nitrogen and other nutrients into the water, they provide an all-you-can-eat buffet for algae blooms. More algae means less sunlight and oxygen for other marine life, which means trouble for the people of Cape Cod.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


For Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. Today we’re bringing you the second installment in our three-part Fascination series on Cape Cod’s yellow tide. In this episode WBUR environmental correspondent Barbara Moran looks at some of the big-ticket pollution solutions up for consideration—and unpacks why they’re so controversial.

So without further ado, here’s part two: “Sticker Shock.”

[CLIP: Gerard Martin speaks at a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) hearing: “All right, excuse me, everybody, I think we’re gonna get going.”]

Barbara Moran: Starting in late 2022 and continuing into the next year, concerned residents gathered for a series of public meetings with representatives from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The residents were there to share their thoughts.

[CLIP: Martin continues to speak at the hearing: “The hearing is being recorded and conducted in a hybrid format.”]

Moran: The state was proposing new rules that would require communities to reduce their nitrogen pollution. In some places that meant people would potentially have to install new $35,000 septic systems. Here’s what Frank King of Brewster, Massachusetts, had to say about that.

[CLIP: Frank King speaks at the MassDEP hearing: “If that is correct, you are looking at a massive protest on the scale of another Boston Tea Party.”]

[CLIP: Chris Shanahan speaks at the MassDEP hearing: “Thirty or thirty-five thousand dollars a year? That’s a complete misrepresentation.”]

Moran: That’s Chris Shanahan of Falmouth, Massachusetts.

[CLIP: Shanahan continues to speak at the hearing: “You can buy a system for that. You gotta maintain it. You gotta fix parts. It just never ends. So lifetime expense is more like eighty or a hundred thousand over 30 years.”]

[CLIP: Joan Hutchings speaks at the MassDEP hearing: “I’m not somebody that has a McMansion. I’ve got a three-bedroom home that’s been in my family for a bazillion years.”]

Moran: Joan Hutchings of North Truro, Massachusetts. She said her town already made her upgrade her septic system.

[CLIP: Hutchings continues to speak at the hearing: “Now the state’s gonna have me do something else? I don’t know, I might put an outhouse out back—seriously.”]

Moran: People are concerned about the cost, as you heard. But they’re also concerned about whether these new systems even work. Can they actually prevent water pollution? I wondered the same thing. So I went to see an expert.

Brian Baumgaertel: My name is Brian Baumgaertel. I’m the director of the Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center.

Moran: You met Brian briefly in Episode One. Now we’re on his home turf: a two-and-a-half acre outdoor laboratory on Cape Cod known as MASSTC.

Brian’s team is on a mission to find the best septic systems in the world—and it’s not a job for the squeamish.

[CLIP: Sound of wastewater channel]

Moran (tape): All right, so I’m looking into this hole, and there’s, like, water pouring in and some scummy stuff floating around there.

Baumgaertel: Yeah, that’s the raw wastewater coming in from Joint Base Cape Cod. And it doesn’t look like what most people would think of when—you know, when you’re thinking of wastewater, you think it’s pretty disgusting. I—you know, maybe I’ve just gotten so used to it. I don’t know.

Moran (tape): It is a little disgusting. [Laughs]

Baumgaertel: It’s got kind of a smell. You know, it’s one of the less glorious parts of MASSTC, but it’s a necessity. [Laughs] It’s brown gold, brown gold for us.

Moran: MASSTC uses that brown gold to test prototype septic systems from all over the world. I ask Brian to show me one—although it’s hard to see much at the facility.

Baumgaertel: A lot of what we do here is underground because of course, for the most part, septic systems in homes would be underground.

Moran: Brian walks over to a grassy mound that looks weirdly like a burial site—which it is, actually. He says that buried underneath our feet is a new kind of septic system that removes nitrogen from wastewater.

Here’s how it works: Wastewater flows into a tank, and all the solid stuff sinks to the bottom. The liquid left floating on top includes our pee, which is rich in nitrogen, phosphorus and other nutrients. This liquid flows out of the tank …

Baumgaertel: And then flows into the actual unit itself …

Moran (tape): Another tank that’s under our feet.

Baumgaertel: Yep, yep. There’s another tank that’s about 12 feet long right here.

Moran (tape): Okay.

Baumgaertel: And inside that tank are a number of compartments.

Moran: The compartments contain limestone rocks and wood chips. These ingredients create a breeding ground for bacteria that eat nitrogen. They convert it into harmless nitrogen gas before it gets into the groundwater.

Other systems remove nitrogen in different ways. Brian and his team test the water coming out of each system to see how well it works. And he says this one has been working pretty well.

Baumgaertel: So far the data look very encouraging. Every day we get a little bit more data, we get a little bit more confidence that the technology can work.

[CLIP: “We Are Giants,” by Silver Maple]

Moran: Others are also heartened by the data, including Zenas Crocker, who goes by Zee. He’s executive director of the nonprofit Barnstable Clean Water Coalition.

Zenas Crocker: And this system is so successful that in the data that we’re seeing now, it will remove between 95 and 97 percent of nitrogen going into the groundwater.

Moran: Zee’s group was so impressed with how well these systems remove nitrogen that it launched a pilot project. The group is installing more than a dozen in a neighborhood by Shubael Pond in Barnstable, Massachusetts—including one when I visited last September.

[CLIP: Sound of chains being attached to a tank, followed by it being lifted]

Moran: As we watch, a crane operator uses chains to lift a concrete tank and lower it into a hole in the ground.

[CLIP: Sound of the tank being lowered and men talking]

Moran: Zee’s group is working with the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey to monitor how well the new systems keep nitrogen out of the groundwater.

Crocker: We chose this location in particular because these are all small lots. We’re also in a working-class community. Generally we’re looking at full-time residents here and people who really can’t afford, necessarily, to upgrade their septic systems.

Moran: The Barnstable Clean Water Coalition paid to install the systems in this neighborhood; the homeowners paid nothing—which won’t be an option for the whole cape.

But there is another approach to stopping wastewater pollution: switching from septic tanks to sewage pipes, which would bring the waste to a treatment plant. And that’s what Barnstable is doing in other parts of the town.

I went to Barnstable’s town hall to meet the guy in charge.

Moran (tape): Hi, how’re you doing? I have a nine o’clock interview with Mark Ells.

Receptionist: Okay, sure, he’ll be right with you.

Moran: Mark Ells is Barnstable’s town manager.

Mark Ells: We’ve seen a significant deterioration of our bays to the point where we don’t have shellfish, we don’t have finfish. So we want to make sure that we put in place solutions that help us to address not only what we know today but what we’re anticipating tomorrow.

Moran: Barnstable is the largest town on the cape, and parts are pretty urban, with houses and commercial buildings relatively close together. In places like this, sewer systems are a practical and cost-effective choice.

So the town has begun a massive expansion of its sewer system, planning to extend service to almost 12,000 properties.

[CLIP: “Let There Be Rain,” by Silver Maple]

It’ll take 30 years and cost more than $1 billion. The town got local, state and federal funding to help cover the expansion costs. But homeowners will still have to pay.

First there’s a town assessment of up to $10,000. Then homeowners have to pay to get their house hooked up to the sewer line and pay for someone to deal with their old septic tank. And then they’ll have a monthly sewer bill. The final cost, spread over decades, is probably in the range of $20,000 to $30,000—or more—per house.

[CLIP: Construction sounds]

Moran: And there’s another cost to installing sewer lines: seemingly constant roadwork and traffic jams.

One day last fall cars crawled along as superintendent Mike Donovan’s crew dug up the main road into Barnstable.

Moran (tape): Is this going to be, like, what your company does for, like, the next three decades?

Mike Donovan: We—well, hopefully, yeah. That’s what we do for a living. We’re installing sewer all over the cape right now.

Moran: But even this ambitious, expensive sewer expansion will take decades to reach some neighborhoods in Barnstable.

Pat Uhlman lives across the street from Shubael Pond. And she’s seen it turn green with toxic algae. She says a few decades is too long to keep polluting the water.

Pat Uhlman: If we don’t start cleaning it up now, you know, you might not even want to walk down by that pond by then.

Moran: Luckily Pat is part of the neighborhood pilot project that got new septic systems installed for free. She says she understands that other homeowners are feeling sticker shock, but the pollution has to stop.

Uhlman: The cape economy is still people coming here in the summer. So if they can’t swim in our ponds, they can’t swim in our ocean, they can’t boat, there’s not gonna be any reason for them to come here.

[CLIP: Theme music]

Moran: There may be another solution, a cheaper one. It won’t solve all the cape’s water problems, but it could help—a lot. We’ll talk about that next week in the final part of this Scientific American–WBUR Fascination miniseries.

Feltman: Thanks for listening. Tune in next Friday for the final installment in this miniseries—which, spoiler alert, involves a little something called “pee-cycling.” You don’t want to miss it.

Can’t wait for next Friday to get here? Don’t worry. We are taking Monday off for Memorial Day, but we’ll be back in your feed on Wednesday with some tips for protecting wildlife from the comfort of your own backyard.

This series is a co-production of WBUR and Scientific American. It’s reported and hosted by WBUR’s Barbara Moran.

Science Quickly is produced by Jeff DelViscio, Kelso Harper, Madison Goldberg and Rachel Feltman. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-checked this series, and Duy Linh Tu and Sebastian Tuinder contributed reporting and sound. WBUR’s Kathleen Masterson edited this series. Additional funding was provided by the Pulitzer Center.

For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

EPA urged to classify abortion drugs as pollutants

It follows 40 other anti-abortion groups and lawmakers previously calling for the EPA to assess the water pollution levels of the drug.

(NewsNation) — Anti-abortion group Students for Life of America is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to add abortion drug mifepristone to its list of water contaminants. It follows 40 other anti-abortion groups and lawmakers previously calling for the EPA to assess the water pollution levels of the abortion drug. “The EPA has the regulatory authority and humane responsibility to determine the extent of abortion water pollution, caused by the reckless and negligent policies pushed by past administrations through the [Food and Drug Administration],” Kristan Hawkins, president of SFLA, said in a release. “Take the word ‘abortion’ out of it and ask, should chemically tainted blood and placenta tissue, along with human remains, be flushed by the tons into America’s waterways? And since the federal government set that up, shouldn’t we know what’s in our water?” she added. In 2025, lawmakers from seven states introduced bills, none of which passed, to either order environmental studies on the effects of mifepristone in water or to enact environmental regulations for the drug. EPA’s Office of Water leaders met with Politico in November, with its press secretary Brigit Hirsch telling the outlet it “takes the issue of pharmaceuticals in our water systems seriously and employs a rigorous, science-based approach to protect human health and the environment.” “As always, EPA encourages all stakeholders invested in clean and safe drinking water to review the proposals and submit comments,” Hirsch added. Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Trump’s EPA' in 2025: A Fossil Fuel-Friendly Approach to Deregulation

The Trump administration has reshaped the Environmental Protection Agency, reversing pollution limits and promoting fossil fuels

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has transformed the Environmental Protection Agency in its first year, cutting federal limits on air and water pollution and promoting fossil fuels, a metamorphosis that clashes with the agency’s historic mission to protect human health and the environment.The administration says its actions will “unleash” the American economy, but environmentalists say the agency’s abrupt change in focus threatens to unravel years of progress on climate-friendly initiatives that could be hard or impossible to reverse.“It just constantly wants to pat the fossil fuel business on the back and turn back the clock to a pre-Richard Nixon era” when the agency didn’t exist, said historian Douglas Brinkley.Zeldin has argued the EPA can protect the environment and grow the economy at the same time. He announced “five pillars” to guide EPA’s work; four were economic goals, including energy dominance — Trump’s shorthand for more fossil fuels — and boosting the auto industry.Zeldin, a former New York congressman who had a record as a moderate Republican on some environmental issues, said his views on climate change have evolved. Many federal and state climate goals are unattainable in the near future — and come at huge cost, he said.“We should not be causing … extreme economic pain for an individual or a family” because of policies aimed at “saving the planet,” he told reporters at EPA headquarters in early December.But scientists and experts say the EPA's new direction comes at a cost to public health, and would lead to far more pollutants in the environment, including mercury, lead and especially tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs. They also note higher emissions of greenhouse gases will worsen atmospheric warming that is driving more frequent, costly and deadly extreme weather.Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who led the EPA for several years under President George W. Bush, said watching Zeldin attack laws protecting air and water has been “just depressing.” “It’s tragic for our country. I worry about my grandchildren, of which I have seven. I worry about what their future is going to be if they don’t have clean air, if they don’t have clean water to drink,” she said.The EPA was launched under Nixon in 1970 with pollution disrupting American life, some cities suffocating in smog and some rivers turned into wastelands by industrial chemicals. Congress passed laws then that remain foundational for protecting water, air and endangered species.The agency's aggressiveness has always seesawed depending on who occupies the White House. Former President Joe Biden's administration boosted renewable energy and electric vehicles, tightened motor-vehicle emissions and proposed greenhouse gas limits on coal-fired power plants and oil and gas wells. Industry groups called rules overly burdensome and said the power plant rule would force many aging plants to shut down. In response, many businesses shifted resources to meet the more stringent rules that are now being undone.“While the Biden EPA repeatedly attempted to usurp the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law to impose its ‘Green New Scam,’ the Trump EPA is laser-focused on achieving results for the American people while operating within the limits of the laws passed by Congress,” EPA spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch said. Zeldin's list of targets is long Much of EPA’s new direction aligns with Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation road map that argued the agency should gut staffing, cut regulations and end what it called a war on coal on other fossil fuels.“A lot of the regulations that were put on during the Biden administration were more harmful and restrictive than in any other period. So that’s why deregulating them looks like EPA is making major changes,” said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of Heritage's Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment.But Chris Frey, an EPA official under Biden, said the regulations Zeldin has targeted “offered benefits of avoided premature deaths, of avoided chronic illness … bad things that would not happen because of these rules.”Matthew Tejada, a former EPA official under both Trump and Biden who now works at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said of the revamped EPA: “I think it would be hard for them to make it any clearer to polluters in this country that they can go on about their business and not worry about EPA getting in their way.”Zeldin also has shrunk EPA staffing by about 20% to levels last seen in the mid-1980s. Justin Chen, president of the EPA’s largest union, called staff cuts “devastating.” He cited the dismantling of research and development offices at labs across the country and the firing of employees who signed a letter of dissent opposing EPA cuts. Relaxed enforcement and cutting staff Many of Zeldin's changes aren't in effect yet. It takes time to propose new rules, get public input and finalize rollbacks. It's much faster to cut grants and ease up on enforcement, and Trump's EPA is doing both. The number of new civil environmental actions is roughly one-fifth what it was in the first eight months of the Biden administration, according to the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project. “You can effectively do a lot of deregulation if you just don’t do enforcement,” said Leif Fredrickson, visiting assistant professor of history at the University of Montana.Hirsch said the number of legal filings isn't the best way to judge enforcement because they require work outside of the EPA and can bog staff down with burdensome legal agreements. She said the EPA is “focused on efficiently resolving violations and achieving compliance as quickly as possible” and not making demands beyond what the law requires.EPA's cuts have been especially hard on climate change programs and environmental justice, the effort to address chronic pollution that typically is worse in minority and poor communities. Both were Biden priorities. Zeldin dismissed staff and canceled billions in grants for projects that fell under the “diversity, equity and inclusion” umbrella, a Trump administration target.He also spiked a $20 billion “green bank” set up under Biden’s landmark climate law to fund qualifying clean energy projects. Zeldin argued the fund was a scheme to funnel money to Democrat-aligned organizations with little oversight — allegations a federal judge rejected. Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert and former director of the Environmental Law School at Vermont Law & Graduate School, said the EPA's shift under Trump left him with little optimism for what he called “the two most awful crises in the 21st century” — biodiversity loss and climate disruption.“I don’t see any hope for either one,” he said. “I really don’t. And I’ll be long gone, but I think the world is in just for absolute catastrophe.”The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.